Media make false comparison of inauguration costs
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Leading up to President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony, several media outlets have advanced the claim that Obama's inauguration will cost significantly more than President Bush's 2005 inauguration. Citing "estimates" ranging from $150 million to $170 million in total costs for Obama's inaugural events, the outlets have compared the purported total costs in 2009 to the approximately $42 million in private funds spent on Bush's 2005 inauguration. However, these outlets omit the additional costs of security, transportation, and other expenses incurred by federal, state, and local governments in conjunction with the events in 2005 while including them in the projections for the 2009 events.
Leading up to President-elect Barack Obama's January 20 swearing-in ceremony, several media outlets have advanced the claim that Obama's inauguration will cost significantly more than President Bush's 2005 inauguration. Citing "estimates" ranging from $150 million (MSNBC) to $170 million (ABC News) in total costs for Obama's inaugural events, the outlets have compared the purported total costs in 2009 to the approximately $42 million in private funds spent on Bush's 2005 inauguration. However, as Media Matters for America has noted, these outlets omit the additional costs of security, transportation, and other expenses incurred by federal, state, and local governments in conjunction with the events in 2005 -- which reportedly reached $115.5 million -- while including them in the projections for the 2009 events. Further, Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert noted that many media outlets have failed to show any evidence to support their estimates.
For example, MSNBC anchor David Shuster ignored the cost of transportation and security in Bush's 2005 inauguration and provided no source for his "estimates" when he asserted during the January 19 edition of MSNBC Live: "Some estimates put the price tag [for Obama's inauguration] as high as $150 million. That dwarfs the record $42 million spent on President Bush's celebration in 2005." During the segment, MSNBC presented on-screen text titled "Inauguration Price Tag" that read, "2005: $42 million" and "2009: $150 million (ESTIMATE)."
A January 19 ABCNews.com article headlined "What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration" detailed the costs of the 2009 inauguration:
The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.
The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.
The article's author, ABC News business writer Scott Mayerowitz, compared the "roughly $45 million" in private funds raised by Obama's inaugural committee to previous inaugurations' private funding: "That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993." However, in making the comparison of privately funded costs, Mayerowitz did not compare the total cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration -- including public funds -- despite highlighting those expenses for Obama's inauguration.
Media Matters has noted that when the costs incurred by the federal government and the District of Columbia are factored in, the total cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration was reportedly around $157 million. The Washington Post reported in January 2005 that the cost of Bush's second inauguration, which the Post reported to be $40 million, "does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment." Further, The New York Times reported on January 5 that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers."
The ABCNews.com article was featured by the conservative website the Drudge Report with the headline: "WHAT RECESSION? THE $170 MILLION INAUGURATION."

From the January 19 ABCNews.com article:
The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .
The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.
The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.
And then there is the party bill.
"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglas, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.
That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.
From the January 19 edition of MSNBC Live:
SHUSTER: You're looking at live pictures -- people just starting to walk along the National Mall here in Washington, D.C. We are just less than 27 hours away from the swearing-in of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States. People off to something of an early start here in Washington with some of the snowflakes and about 32 degrees. But this is going to be a fairly pricey inauguration; in fact, perhaps the most expensive inauguration ever. Some estimates put the price tag as high as $150 million. That dwarfs the record $42 million spent on President Bush's celebration in 2005. Obviously a very different feel for this one, and a very huge crowd that has already arrived in Washington.

















Media wrong again? It's just more repug journalism.
Rest assured we will get another healthy dose of denial from phil, aa and former dem with all that fake indignation about us lefties not holding obama to the same standard we held bush to (even though all the three combined were ever able to present was a source showing ONE reporter running ONE story about that).
Maybe if the three of them spent as much time researching for some proof as they did accusing lefties of using scorn, insults and lies in place of debate (while using scorn, insults and lies to make that point) they could find something more. Ya think?
I expect a few right wing zealots will eventually switch over from the dark side; it's such a hard thing to keep up, year after year.
Hey Mary, saw your response to phil from friday's sunday posting. God, does that guy like to watch himself type or what?
It's really not so hard, Mary. I guess the hardest part is breathing through this huge helmet while clutching my hardcover copy of "Savage Nation" in my good hand and at the same time lop off Luke's arm with my light sabre. All in all, the dark side has it's good points and it's bad points. Say hi to Barack Obewan.
I agree, the media wakes up on the 20th of January and decides to hold the President accountable. I had to laugh, they had David Gregory on "The Colbert Report" and he had the guts to defend the media's handling of the shrub.
I certainly would not describe Gregory as having "guts", but GALL.
I have to wonder what Gregory did to "earn" his new gig at Meet the Press; it is arguably the most prestigious news-related post at NBC. Did he have to agree not to bring up the uncomfortable truths that might embarrass his corporate masters?
I wish people like Gregory would take some lessons from Colbert and Jon Stewart on how to interview a politician. Those two comedians, especially Stewart, ask tougher questions than any of the overpaid puffballs who call themselves journalists these days.
Snoopy
I am hurt, you left me off your list. I thought we had connected.
Hey, I'm gonna give you some credit for Farakhan's group. I'm personally glad he's marginalized though you really couldn't find a quote of him advocating killing.
ya gotta start somewhere...
Try this on Snoop!
[IMG]http://images6.theimagehosting.com/muzzle.th.jpg[/IMG]
Wow, a muzzle! From the side who whines about the return of the fairness doctrine, no less! No free speech for you anymore...
Let me get this straight. the Drudghe report starts this rumor by linking to the false report in a London tabloid on the 14th. It gets picked up by Fox (on the 17th) and the other networks because of that link. (according to an earlier MMFA report). Drudge now features the story with embellishment based on the network coverage.
Do none of the nitwits on network television ever check MMFA?
Those of you who watch newtwork news are fools. How can you know what is true? They are making NO effort. This ain't rocket science.
I am still left wondering what a true side by side comparison of like items would look like? Now that would be a good article....but I do not think it will match the implied story here.
I seem to recall a good chunk of the media pulling out their hair at the prospect of ACORN potentially 'buying' or hurting Obama's ability to be seen as a rightfully placed president... Of course... Obama won by more than 13 million votes...
So any surprise that the same media chumps that blustered about ACORN are now clucking away about the price of Obama's safety, as if is nothing more than another way for the media to hurt Obama's presidency?
Of course, these fools were also the same ones that demanded that we all respect the president (Bush) because it was a time of war and he needed all the blind backing from us all.... hypocrits!
There's so many "litmus tests" to determine political hypocrisy some of them are starting to become overused.
So it's all approved by the exiting administration, maybe they needed even that to deride Obama.
It can't hold a candle to Bernanke's haggling for a clean trillion.
David Shuster. Not only sexist, but also dumb.
I'd like to dig deep and find the correct answers for the costs of these inagurations but it's not like finding a copy of a receipt in a box marked "what we paid for the inaguration". Where do we find the proper answers, without sounding pollyanish.
The inauguation comittee itself. Try a goggle search, or someother search schtick would maybe get you some answers. Gonna try it myself and see.
Not much help on the official site. Otherwise alot on recent decisions concerning donar (sp) names being released.
The original NYT article is as informative as anything I've seen.
I'll give it a shot, ewe, but I think I'm gonna be chasing my tail. Thanks for the tip.
Personally, I don't CARE how much is spent, if a large amount is spent on security. There are a lot of crazies out there who would have done harm to Obama AND his family way before the election. The hatred from this group was exposed for all to see by Sarah Palin's adoring mobs. They haven't gone away.
On shamity on Monday night one of the "Great American Panel" contestants complained about hypocrisy on the part of [no names were given]. She said [no names were given] complained about 2005 inauguration costs but that [no names were given] is quiet now.
David Corn claimed today that the very eclectic Springsteen was "once a greaser-rocker". Actually, Springsteen is American rock and roll.
Maybe you should read about what Anthony Weiner and Jim McDermott said in 2005. Mark Cuban was another one of those who complained in 2005. None of them are complaining now.
If Media Matters is going to debunk the way the Obama Inaug costs are being reported than I have a suggestion. Please post a table showing costs for security, transportation, etc. Column one for Obama and column two for Bush 43. Use rows A through X to illustrate the different expenses comparing as they say apple to apples.
kirkles:
Didn't you see the links in the MMFA article? Did you read ther MMFA article? The Washington Post and the NYT previously reported claims (or facts) back in 2005 that dispute the story as told now. They admitted back then that the total Bush cost was about 140mil. Why ask MMFA? Ask those papers where they got their numbers or why current reported don't know about it.
I don't understand the anger at the cost of President Obama's inauguration.
Anytime a product or brand gets a tarnished reputation, the choice is to discontinue the item or for the company responsible for it to go out of business.
In this case we have one of the most tarnished products in history, the American Presidency. Our nations reputation and value in the world has diminished since 2001.
We need to show the world that we're not going to give up, we won't allow our good name to be damaged any longer. We've got to be willing to polish our image and show our citizens and the world that the rule of law is back.
We need to take back our position of being the country whose light shines brightest in todays darkness.
Good points. The way I look at it, all of this money is being spent domestically, so maybe it will help stimulate the DC economy. I'm sure the local vendors are loving it.
Of course, the people whining the loudest have uttered not a peep of protest over the hundreds of billions that have been pi$$ed into the sands of Iraq.
Nerz, I find that funny too. I posted this on another thread (hoping my math is close);
OT, but current. I've got con co-workers walking around whining about the cost of this inauguration, pretending to be very disgusted with the expense in these economic times. Feel free to check my math, but I think even if we go with the media's projection of 150 mil, that's somewhere around;
1/2 a day in Iraq
15% of the unaccounted for/missing money in the "war on terror"
so..... STFU, wingnuts.
Well, you complained about the cost of Bush's inauguration!
They are already burning Obama's picture in Iran. The countries that support us will support us. The ones that won't will never support us even with Obama.
The brand is not tarnished except in the eyes of whining leftists.
Wrong, the number of countries that wont support us grew under der bush.
The brand is not tarnished.... except in the eyes of the majority of Amercians as shown by the election and very strong vocal opinions overseas by almost all our allies. Leatherhelmets is impenetrable. Our most ardent muslim enemy doesn't like our bi-racial president and LH thinks this means... The brand is not tarnished
We're whining along with eighty percent of the population of the nation and the best wishes of most of the world. We're at the point in our history where we'll have no more chances. Thankfully, the majority of the people seem willing to admit that there's a problem and are willing to put differences aside and work for the common good.
I can only feel sorry for you Leather. If you've got a legitimate complaint, voice it. But so far all you're doing is bitterly crying in the wilderness.
Our eight-year national nightmare is over.
I just sat through a speech by my president, and I didn't cringe or think "I hope nobody's watching this". I can't remember when that last happened.
But I also took a little drive and heard the analysis by Limbaugh & Prager. Not enough punchy sound bites, the audience wasn't really into it, everything was in some sort of secret code that the old white bedwetters couldn't figure out. They sounded like a couple of guys with 8 track tape players sitting around finding flaws with their neighbors new cd player.
You're on to something colonel. They miss those old broken records, repeating the same old songs and getting all the words wrong because of the tinny sounding speakers.
Rush is one of those guys who never listened to Hendrix after he heard him sing, " 'scuse me while I kiss this guy".
HHOOWhaa wadda day. Hope Ted comes out of this ok. And of course new levels of zanyness in our favorite parts of the media and our nation's leading jurist.
FREE JOHN ROBERTS!! Just to preeempt tomorrow's conspiracy tahday!
The mainstream media is always reporting one sided biased reports. First of all this article repeats itself over and over again? What kind of articel is this? Notice how this guy continues to bash these media outlets for not stating sources whatsoever, where does he state the figures for his security costs? I dont believe i came across anything that stated that! Bush is now not even the pres and people continue to bash him!! how bad is that!! They totally disrespected him during the inaguaration today!!
"However, these outlets omit the additional costs of security, transportation, and other expenses incurred by federal, state, and local governments in conjunction with the events in 2005 while including them in the projections for the 2009 events."
So once again comparing apples to oranges and since when do we care what post-inauguration parties cost (paid for by private donors)? Are the Rwnuts jealous the Democrats have more money than they did?
"The brand is not tarnished except in the eyes of whining leftists."
I.E. the normal 80% of the population. That's OK, just keep on thinking that way and 2012 will be even easier for us.
Well, let's face it, if the gops can't buy it or steal it, they're pretty much toast. Burnt toast.
For those wondering why such misstatements are important from a NEWS source, consider this;
These same NEWS people report people are dying from bad peanut-butter. Then the report that everything is OK and that it is safe to eay peanut-butter again.
Given that they present clearly false information about the cost of the inauguration, we might wonder if the initial peanut-butter scare was real? Is it now safe to give my kids lunch?
Once you lose credibility in one area (and not just by making a slight misstatement but broadcasting and printing an outright lie) you have an honesty problem.
Suppose the sponsor of the News sells peanut-butter and orders the network to bury the story about people dying from bad food?
Do the "News" people on the network ever worry about this?
Even care?